Posted
by
timothy
on Saturday November 16, 2013 @10:29AM
from the can't-quite-put-a-finger-on-it dept.

Rambo Tribble writes "Reuters is reporting that the FBI has issued a warning to several U.S. Government agencies that the Anonymous collective has hacked their systems. Included in the list of compromised agencies are the U.S. Army, Department of Energy, Department of Health and Human Services, and potentially many more agencies. The avenue of attack: Adobe Cold Fusion."

The War on the Internet is as much about creating an environment of fear that will justify increased spending, as it is cracking down on the young smart kids who are the real threat to the corporate para-State.

So it's fairly likely that the FBI/NSA and their legal or criminal subcontractors are heavily involved in any dramatic security-related event. The fact that government websites are targeted makes no difference. Simple little false flags that keep the pressure up on legislators.

It's easy to mock all this but the threat to our digital lifestyle is real and serious. We're a few years away from a fully regulated Internet where if you don't conform -- by running approved hardware, approved software, approved monitoring -- you simply won't get access, period. Clipper chip, remember that?

And the only way to convince the mass of "who cares?" public are a series of dramatic, dangerous, unacceptable attacks on websites, infrastructure, transport, etc.

I was about to post something that would go line by line of your post arguing the usual things against conspiracies that I'd parrot from Skeptics like Michael Shermer.

Then, I though about the latest events, the PATRIOT Act. the lobbying by big IT firms and defense contractors, and just the pathetic power hungriness and narcisism of our elected officials.

So, I said to myself, "What the parent has suggested is completely probable in this day and age."

It's not an individual super villian, but it is bunch of sociopathic people all working towards the same goal as stated in the parent's post. And they have the greatest weapon on Earth - people's irrational fear and desperation to feel safe.

There's a dark irony in so-called skeptics pushing their own conspiracy theories (mysterious gangs hate our way of life) to muffle out the obvious truth that it's (always) all about the money.

It's not only probable, it's by far the simplest explanation, that the military-security complex needs to create threats to justify its existence, so a handsome slice of its budget consistently goes back into black operations against the very people it's meant to be protecting. If you argue that only crooks would do this, then my question is, what evidence do you have that the FBI, CIA, NSA, GCHQ et al are not run by simple crooks?

As for being pessimistic, it's a normal feeling but not useful. Read my book (free, see below) for a background into how this state of affairs came to be, and how to fix things.

The FBI, CIA, or the NSA are not collecting credit card information or other personal data used to commit online fraud against the average citizen. If your credit card information or your SSN has ever been compromised your screwed. If you live in the US I assure you the government already has a lot of your personal data. Just your SSN and Tax Returns provide everything the government would need to find you if they wanted to. Of course they have had this data long before the Internet ever came into play. Th

what evidence do you have that the FBI, CIA, NSA, GCHQ et al are not run by simple crooks?

What, facilitating the sale hard drugs [wikipedia.org] in America or selling military equipment on the black market [wikipedia.org] to "axis of evil" type countries is not criminal enough? People forget the criminal history [wikipedia.org] of some of these organizations rather quickly and seem to ignore the current ongoing [commondreams.org] continuation of the same [matthewaid.com]. Guess that propaganda and a firm grip on the corporate mass media message reaching the majority just works. We have a serious amount of evidence that those organizations have committed egregious crimes, so the real question is: How do we know/guarantee that they are NO LONGER being run by criminals?

This is not a conspiracy it is simple logical extrapolation. The FBI is aware of incursions into specific computer networks, they do not know who has committed the incursions, hence literally those person or persons are anonymous, as they are anonymous logically they must be a member of "Anonymous", else they would not be anonymous.

Fucking, Bloody, Idiot, thinking, what could be more obvious. Here's a hint, unless they have been caught and prosecuted and they publicly claim to be a member of Anonymous, t

It's not beyond these people to lie to achieve what they want. Hopefully I didn't even need to mention that, but I did just to be sure we were on the up and up here. Reading the article, there is nothing I can see to verify that this was in fact the work of Anonymous. Some things don't line up with the normal activities. This article not only spreads FUD for internet censorship and control, but FUD about activism/hactivism.

From TFA, they first claim that anonymous used PDF exploits. Well, just about eve

The War on the Internet is as much about creating an environment of fear that will justify increased spending, as it is cracking down on the young smart kids who are the real threat to the corporate para-State.

Just like the 'war on drugs' is. And people get in line willingly to support it.

The War on the Internet is as much about creating an environment of fear that will justify increased spending, as it is cracking down on the young smart kids who are the real threat to the corporate para-State.

Just like the 'war on drugs' is. And people get in line willingly to support it.

The war on drugs doesn't crack down on young smart kids, it cracks down on kids who spend all day on the couch eating Cheetos and watching T.V. because they can't muster up the energy to play Call of Duty after the last bong hit, and then they head out to White Castle at two AM because they saw Derek and Kumar do it in a movie, and, besides, they have the munchies and there's no food left in the house. Neil Patrick Harris on the unicorn is optional at that point.

The War on the Internet is as much about creating an environment of fear that will justify increased spending, as it is cracking down on the young smart kids who are the real threat to the corporate para-State.

So it's fairly likely that the FBI/NSA and their legal or criminal subcontractors are heavily involved in any dramatic security-related event. The fact that government websites are targeted makes no difference. Simple little false flags that keep the pressure up on legislators.

It's easy to mock all this but the threat to our digital lifestyle is real and serious. We're a few years away from a fully regulated Internet where if you don't conform -- by running approved hardware, approved software, approved monitoring -- you simply won't get access, period. Clipper chip, remember that?

And the only way to convince the mass of "who cares?" public are a series of dramatic, dangerous, unacceptable attacks on websites, infrastructure, transport, etc.

If you consider who stands to gain from this sort of control, it becomes apparent that any alleged 'war on the internet', if it exists, is likely to fail. I've been using what became the internet before it was called the internet (usenet and arpanet, from UC in 1982, arpanet at BBN in 83 and beyond). Folks have been ranting about the internet going to the dogs since the thing started. (Remember folks putting 'terrorist' keywords into their usenet posts to foil the NSA?) The sky hasn't yet fallen. I realize

You keep posting that crap for every other article.You're being sarcastic, right? You know tea party people think government is basically incompetent, incapable of say, launching a shopping web site, right? Conspiracy theorists, on the other hand, believe the government is secretly controlling everything, that they run everything. So pretty much opposite ideas of what government is. Here's a cheat sheet for you:

Believes government is incapable of setting up an insurance shopping web site: tea partyBeliev

Yes... the NSA is going to assassinate Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds

That's not the point. If they did that, they'd lose a great deal of credibility, and I mean real credibility---the kind of credibility loss that wakes the people up, sparks real debate, and gets congress critters elected that really will defund this crap on a meaningful level. Of course they wouldn't do that.

If I were going to compare the NSA to a character from The Matrix, I'd rather pick the Architecht. The Architecht is an interesting character because of his complete disinterest in how the goal of funneling bio-energy from the humans in the matrix to the machine city is accomplished as long as it's accomplished. In the same way, the NSA/FBI/CIA/TSA/DHS/OMG/WTF/BBQ seem to be in a role, domestically at least, of ensuring that a steady stream of tax revenue find its way to the military-industrial complex.

The average person has absolutely no idea how web pages are served or what the infrastructure of the internet looks like beyond the physical of copper and fiber, and they have no idea how to gauge whether their sensitive, private data is being stored according to best practices or whether there are some serious concerns to be had. Sure, when somebody "breaks in" to a computer system and gains access to sensitive information, it's not right, but it's not always a crime either. Did the stewards of that information use best practiceses, was there a lapse and somebody forgot to lock a door behind them, or did they leave it out on the sidewalk with a giant "take one!" sign next to it? The public, at present, is completely unequipped to evaluate that, because networked computers are sufficiently advanced technology. They're indistinguishable from magic.

That may not always be the case, and there's definitely room for improvement in primary education to include basic introductions to what constitutes information security and how the internet works.

The point is that "hacking" is a scary thing to the public. If government websites are being hacked, there must be some very scary enemies out there, and it might even be an act of war. Our lifestyle might be under attack once again in the same way it was during the height the cold war.

That's a very profitable thing for the military-industrial complex.

The last thing they'd want is a public that, weary of over a decade of security theater, might actually question whether all the military spending is necessary, especially given national debt and budget deficits and the revelations that the NSA might not be making the best use of its funding, and start cutting that funding.

(The argument of whether that would be effective or not in balancing budgets is beyond the scope of this post.)

I can't shake off a feeling that the law enforcement and friendly news sources are using "Anonymous" as a boogeyman. When I see "Anonymous collective has hacked their systems", I read "Their systems were hacked. FBI has no leads". The law enforcement has finally found a perfect line for every situation where they demonstrate incompetence, since "anonymous" turns into "Anonymous" so easily.

I can't shake off a feeling that the law enforcement and friendly news sources are using "Anonymous" as a boogeyman. When I see "Anonymous collective has hacked their systems", I read "Their systems were hacked. FBI has no leads". The law enforcement has finally found a perfect line for every situation where they demonstrate incompetence, since "anonymous" turns into "Anonymous" so easily.

Anonymous should just announce a name change "We who were formerly Anonymous announce that we are officially changing out name to 'The Boogeyman', and are claiming credit for X, Y, Z that we have been accused of perpetrating" kinda thing.

Then all the news reports get corrected to "Security Company Q attacked by The Boogeyman".

Anonymous includes people who actually run these systems all day at their JOB. They don't have to steal info from inside... just a hint on an anonymous board will do. "mbry at fbi.gov, mid-level bureaucrat, local and net admin access, clueless, valuable shared volume access, DB admin, fancies/., Chase, FB, FARK and Brony fansites. Cannot resist smiley packs and IE toolbars."

They don't have to worry about hundreds or thousands of mini-Snowden/Mannings popping up; it only takes one or two to cause a huge shitstorm, so they have to be very worried about that. However, there's not likely to be than many Snowden/Mannings either, because the risk is so insanely high. Manning was caught and is now in a military prison for a very long time, and Snowden evaded capture by the skin of his teeth, and is now stuck in crappy Russia trying to make a new life (after living in warm and beaut

Ok, I know what hacking is. But I hate how it's become a term that allows for future explanation(s). "We've been hacked!" is something that someone who knows what just happened, tells another person that hasn't got a clue, to tell the masses, while some story is created to eventually explain to the masses, or not at all.

"An FBI Spokeswoman declined to elaborate"

I mean to say, what the hell happened? "Being hacked" isn't a real thing. You're missing stuff, or you see that stuff was accessed, or you found some new shit that shouldn't be there... Why aren't they telling us? Could it be because they left something wide open, and cannot legally admit to that?

Considering this is the FBI we're talking about, it's probably a bunch of people they managed to convince to snoop around in their wide-open honeypots. Just like the "terrorists" they arrest that were recruited, encouraged and even trained by them because one day someone happened to make a politically incorrect remark to a nearby agent. Government manufactures its own terrorists. Just like it prints its own money, causes its own social problems and creates its own wars. It's all a dog and pony show to keep you distracted while they pick your pocket.

You are exactly correct. The FBI telling the public, "We were hacked" is the same thing as me telling the FBI "I was hacked". They'd want to know what I meant by "hacked". Because "Hacked" isn't a real term on any level, it just means to be Macgyver-like in an approach to problem-solving. So basically the FBI issued a statement that there was a problem, and someone came up with a clever way around the problem. I don't get it, and that they expect me to get it, makes me think that they're trying to snea

Quick look at ColdFusion vulnerabilities suggests this is probably a real hack. And they aren't saying because its not patched everywhere.You seem to imply that if details are not known, nothing of substance happened. Save your objections for when the details are known, and it is actually not a hack.Preemptive objections make you seem stupid.

I am stupid. But your point is still moot. All I am pointing out is that there are no details, other than "HACKED!!" and not by regular "people" rather "HACKATIVISTS!!" No one is being charged with anything, and yet there is already a group of people named "Anonymous" that are being blamed. So yes, while you're correct that it does make the one who mentions it "stupid", I share this stupidity with the ones that are blaming a group of people that they do not name. AKA terrorists without a face.

The reason the healthcare system is broken is that private enterprise and the states completely broke it. Any problems that are in progress are due to obstruction by the Republican Party who are actively working to sabotage this bill and this President. Even before Obama took office they said they would oppose everything and anything he tried to do.

There are several large Federal agencies like the IRS and Medicare don't have problems with collecting personal data.

Healthcare in the US was broken before Obamacare. Below average outcomes, massive numbers of uninsured and world's highest costs. Thank you states and private industry.

The fact is no country in the world has a working private healthcare system.

Republican low-grade idiots trying to prevent reform were a large part of the reason Obamacare doesn't go nearly far enough towards fixing it. And of course massive efforts trying to sabotage the limited reform are making it even worse.

Okay, let's zero out your expected take from SS and Medicare when you are too old to fund yourself. And while we're at it, it would be okay if Grandma moved in with you, right? Her meds only run a few thou a month, but that's a small price for you to pay to be freed of the Fed. Gov. Let's remove NiH, because you will never get cancer, contract a food born illness, or get nailed by the next pandemic. You'll let the mentally ill live with you, 'cause they'll need a place to stay. They usually need meds too.

Let's also turn the world over to the Chinese because in 20 years, we'll be entirely self-sufficient and won't need any open trading partners. And while we're at it, lets get rid of NTSA and the FAA, you won't die in an airline accident because the airlines cut corners. Let's abolish the SEC, Wall Street and the Banks have your best interests at heart.

And let's get rid of that awful FBI, if your father gets whacked, you won't need no stinking investigation as to whom did it. Come to think of it, we won't have to worry about young kids getting kidnapped because there will be no federal agency to track them down. They shouldn't have gotten their asses kidnapped in the first place. We also don't need the federal prison system, them guys can kip at your house right...be sure to keep your gun loaded and by your bedside, they tend to sleepwalk a bit.

Okay, let's zero out your expected take from SS and Medicare when you are too old to fund yourself. And while we're at it, it would be okay if Grandma moved in with you, right? Her meds only run a few thou a month, but that's a small price for you to pay to be freed of the Fed. Gov. Let's remove NiH, because you will never get cancer, contract a food born illness, or get nailed by the next pandemic. You'll let the mentally ill live with you, 'cause they'll need a place to stay. They usually need meds too.

Every example you've given has a real-world counter-example of where this extremism and remarkable faith in the absoluteness of the efficiency of these systems falls short. To put it very politely.

But you've conveniently omitted all that.

What I want to know is, why ?

People don't want to be told to shut the hell up, everything's fine, when it obviously isn't. And we don't need statist apologists constantly lying to us and pretending that everything's fine and that no other options can be implement

The US has the lowest tax rate of all developed countries. So right there your argument is already wrong.

and the government has given monopoly control to a handful of healthcare giants.

I don't know where you get this from and it is really funny to see how hard you strive to pin a clear failure of the free market (healthcare is not a freely traded good) on your big government bugaboo.

Clearly you've reached a conclusion first (big government is always bad) and now you are forcing the facts into it.

I don't want big government but nor do I want small government. I want government of just t

Of course, it is the GOP sole characteristic to not look up facts. The rest of the political spectrum (from the middle all the way to the far left) may have many flaws, but ignoring facts and figures is not one of them.

"Stories like this" meaning flaws in Adobe products? I don't know the purpose of the attacked systems, so I can't say whether having the leaked data was appropriate, therefore extrapolation is not supported.Any way you look at it, your conclusion is at bestmisplaced, which is why you are modded as troll.

We just learned from the press that targets and directions come from agency.So, typical of government- create a project- fund it- find a disposable hacker to perform the "attack"- report success- ask for more money and staff

Ok...let's just have them burn static HTML pages on a DVD containing the operating system, and work from there. The other side can then play to win against Write Once media.

That's actually a very interesting idea for a web front end where you wouldn't actually expect anything to change without an onsite admin being involved. Even dynamic webpages themselves do not change.

Anon reported back at the beginning of Operation Last Resort that they were already much more deeply entrenched in US government networks than anyone had found. This isn't a new revelation, it's an ongoing event.

A Justice department that claims it's getting hacked (to worrisome levels) by teenagers. A National Security Agency that spends hundreds of billions spying on the citizens it claims to be protecting while accomplishing nothing. A Defense Department whose specialty is fighting foreign wars badly, while shelling out trillions to contractors.

It's well past the time where an honest government, or a real democracy, would say "enough failure" throw in the towel, and start again from scratch.

Krebs and Holden Security bloggers reported circulating copies of an Adobe Source Code archive. Implict is the archive contained Coldfusion source code. At the time they reported the archive encrypted and they were unable to break the encryption.

Fast forward, code surfaces from the archive unencrypted for sale on the internet.

Websites running Coldfusion 8 (an old version no longer supported or monitored for security fixes) is compromised on a number of websites. Re-developing and re-deploying websites devel

No way, it's impossible that sociopathic power-hungry politicians, bankers, military men, and intelligence officers who treat human lives as disposable would stoop to such things. That would be unAmerican. And beside, CNN and MSBNC would tell us if it happened, right? "Controlled opposition"... laughable! Next you're going to tell me the FBI infiltrated Anonymous chat channels and encouraged young guys to hack into their own systems!